Labour MPs Revolt
Yesterday’s revolt by Labour MPs against the Labour government leaving the two-child benefit cap in place was entirely predictable. Illusions held by some Labour activists that, once elected, Starmer might be more radical than his moderate manifesto have been shredded almost immediately. Any idea that Starmer would adopt the relatively inclusive approach to party unity that Blair had with his 1997 landslide government has also evaporated. The fewer than expected rebels have had the whip taken away for six months. Even some centrist Labour MPs have been shocked by how tough Starmer has been.
The Labour leadership has been concerned about the scale of the unease against keeping the cap. Hence the setting up of a task force on poverty and heavy hints it will be dropped in the future. Such concern, of course, does not outweigh its deep commitment to the arbitrary fiscal rules and its strategic partnership with capitalists who want low taxes and meagre benefits.
“Illusions held by some Labour activists that, once elected, Starmer might be more radical than his moderate manifesto have been shredded almost immediately.”
For Starmer, the wealth creators are the owners of capital – workers play a totally subsidiary role following the initiative and genius of their bosses. The fact is that the children who are being kept poor are the real future wealth creators. All wealth is socially produced by working people in laboratories, design labs, software teams, admin and marketing departments, offices, and factories. Dyson or Musk might put big investment in, but this money comes from previous profits generated by workers.
Starmer doesn't want to tax the super wealthy because he's got their backs. So, he's against raising the limit on how many kids you can have if you are poor.
— Mish Rahman (@mish_rahman) July 24, 2024
This is a political choice.
Me on @TimesRadio pic.twitter.com/YfzPWehN4B
Ideology and Reality
Starmer’s reaction also says something about a general attitude to poorer working-class people. Although a lot of the children who would benefit come from families actually in work, there is this ideology that some people are taking advantage. Ben Houchen, Tory Teeside Mayor, on BBC Newsnight lauded hard-working families who make decisions about how many kids they are going to have based on estimating their income. He argued that if we give free handouts to those who have more than two kids, then we are being unfair to the two-child families in ‘regulation’. Literally, by giving them the quite modest child benefit, we would be taking money from the hard-working families.
Today is the last day of the debate on the King’s Speech & there will be a series of votes. I will vote today in support of the amendment calling for the scrapping of the iniquitous 2 child limit on benefits, which has caused such hardship. I explain why in this short video. pic.twitter.com/9hqcFPsjYz
— John McDonnell (@johnmcdonnellMP) July 23, 2024
In Houchen’s world, there is no such thing as unforeseen circumstances, a change of contract, fire and rehire, or getting sick. Children do have rights to universal benefits. Children should get a universal benefit because, well, they are children. Our future wealth creators. The children themselves do not have a choice, so your cruelty towards the parents actually hits human beings who have no control over their situation. I mean, if you think about it logically, lots of people have only one or no children, so it all evens out. Why the fuss? Average family size is only around two children, so we are just about at replacement rate anyway.
“Children should get a universal benefit because, well, they are children. Our future wealth creators.”
This narrative of a deserving hard-working working class as opposed to a feckless underclass goes back many years, even to pre-industrial notions of poverty. It is constantly reinforced by a mass media controlled and owned by multimillionaires. The Tories have always used it but went up a gear after Thatcher, who did not even recognise the reality of a society.
The Labour party is usually a lot less strident and uses different language, but the narrative is still there. The division between sectors of the working class has a material reality – the working class is never homogenous. A toolmaker’s family’s outlook, living in a pebbledashed semi, is framed by different material circumstances than a family on a sink estate with generations in and out of work. The better-educated, slightly better-off, skilled sectors can provide both progressive or reactionary leadership. Levels of unionisation and political involvement often overlap with this division. Liz Kendall has already talked about not making ‘being unemployed an option’. Labour in opposition voted en bloc in support of welfare cuts. Actively dividing the working class in this way is not unique to Britain. In Italy, poorer workers from rural backgrounds in the South were pitted against the skilled, industrial workers of the North.
It suited Starmer’s electoral strategy of targeting Tory voters to be tough on welfare benefits. Now he has won a landslide, he wants to cultivate a ruthless image both by acting against any internal opposition and by not looking soft on welfare. Hence, instead of finding the few billion needed to sort the child cap, he has set up a poverty task force. Even if it dumps the two-child cap, it will make them suffer another six months at least. Giving in would also weaken the exaggerated mantra that there is no money to do anything radical. Revised borrowing figures since the election already could provide a cover for a climbdown.
“Starmer’s reaction also says something about a general attitude to poorer working-class people.”
The revolt shows reports of a complete death of a left Labour MP caucus is premature. John McDonnell, Aspana Begum, Richard Burgon, Zarah Sultana, Ian Byrne, Imran Hussain, and Rebecca Long-Bailey – the Seven, deserve our support. Their revolt keeps the issue centre stage and sustains the campaign. Trade unions and constituency parties will take motions on this to the national Labour Party conference. Already there has been a positive alliance between the MPs and the child poverty charities. Behind the Seven, there are many other Labour MPs who are very unhappy about it. Many abstained and at least two, Diane Abbott and Rosie Duffield, who could not be there for personal reasons, said they would have voted against.
This is why I voted to scrap the two-child benefit cap and immediately lift 300,000 children out of poverty. pic.twitter.com/0CPIPmVqCW
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) July 24, 2024
Nevertheless, opposition is confused. Kim Johnson, the Liverpool MP who had led the campaign in the media, reluctantly did not vote against ‘for the sake of unity’. Andy Burnham, Manchester metro mayor once again standing on the fence and wringing his hands, deplored the two-child cap (don’t they all?) but then whined on about: the financial mess, we need unity, and won’t it be changed down the road?
Starmer’s ruthless response shows you the only unity on offer is on his terms. Blair had a similar revolt in 1997 in the early stages of his government over lone parent benefit cuts. Forty-seven of his MPs, led by Tony Benn, rebelled. No one lost the whip. The current Labour leader is less politically supple than Blair, who was a more experienced and skilful operator. The iron fist is not just being used in the Parliamentary party but nearly everywhere. The new leadership is limiting political discussion in the branches and doing its best to limit any motions that challenge the leadership line.
The leadership knows that it will be taking other decisions that the left will oppose. It thinks by being draconian from the start it can keep rebellions to a minimum. It does not fear the Socialist Campaign Group but rather the risk that an issue it takes up could find support from the 300-odd other MPs and an echo in affiliated trade unions. Its message will be – do not expect any promotion if you rebel and once the whip is removed, you can expect deselection from your local party when the trigger ballots come round at the next election.
Given the anger of some MPs to Starmer’s crackdown, it may be possible for the Seven to win others to their campaign, but clearly, a number of Socialist Campaign Group MPs are not prepared to build a serious left opposition to the leadership. Thankfully, the Seven can now rely on the support of the four Green MPs, Jeremy Corbyn, and the Gaza independents. However, those Labour MPs who are standing up against inequality will need to look outside the Parliamentary Labour Party and beyond their local party members to build the sort of active coalition we need to roll back the austerity or reactionary policies of this government. The left outside Labour should be working alongside the Seven in their continued campaign. Work in the unions is particularly important; Starmer would be much more concerned if he lost his majority there.
Zarah Sultana today said she slept well knowing she had stuck by her principles, defending poor children against poverty. She is right. Last night, pictures emerged on Twitter of groups of the new Labour MPs celebrating loudly their victory in the vote. They are wrong and bring only shame to the Labour movement.
“Zarah Sultana today said she slept well knowing she had stuck by her principles, defending poor children against poverty.”
Keir Starmer – Reverse the Suspension of the 7 MPs >> Sign the Petition
Art (49) Book Review (104) Books (106) Capitalism (64) China (76) Climate Emergency (97) Conservative Government (90) Conservative Party (45) COVID-19 (44) Economics (36) EcoSocialism (48) Elections (77) Europe (44) Fascism (54) Film (49) Film Review (61) France (67) Gaza (55) Imperialism (95) Israel (108) Italy (43) Keir Starmer (50) Labour Party (108) Long Read (39) Marxism (47) Palestine (138) pandemic (78) Protest (145) Russia (322) Solidarity (126) Statement (46) Trade Unionism (132) Ukraine (324) United States of America (124) War (351)